law of marque

简明释义

海上捕拿法

英英释义

例句

1.Under the law of marque 私掠法, privateers could keep a portion of the goods they seized from enemy ships.

根据私掠法 私掠法，私掠者可以保留他们从敌船上夺取的部分货物。

2.The law of marque 私掠法 was a way for nations to outsource naval warfare to private citizens.

通过私掠法 私掠法，国家可以将海战外包给私人公民。

3.During the 17th century, many sailors operated under a law of marque 私掠法 that allowed them to capture enemy ships.

在17世纪，许多水手依据私掠法 私掠法 捕获敌船。

4.Historically, the law of marque 私掠法 provided legitimacy to acts of piracy against enemy nations.

历史上，私掠法 私掠法 为针对敌国的海盗行为提供了合法性。

5.The government issued a law of marque 私掠法 to encourage privateers to attack enemy vessels during the war.

政府发布了一项私掠法 私掠法，以鼓励私掠者攻击敌方船只。

作文

The concept of the law of marque has a rich history that dates back to the medieval period, when nations faced threats from pirates and enemy ships on the high seas. The law of marque essentially allowed a government to authorize private individuals, known as privateers, to capture enemy vessels and seize their cargo. This practice was not only a means of bolstering naval power without the expense of maintaining a large fleet but also served as a way to encourage citizens to participate in national defense. By granting letters of marque, governments could legally sanction acts of piracy against their enemies, creating a win-win situation for both the state and the privateers. The legality and morality of the law of marque have been subjects of debate throughout history. On one hand, it provided a framework for privateers to operate under the law, distinguishing them from ordinary pirates who acted without official sanction. This legal distinction meant that privateers could not be prosecuted for their actions as long as they adhered to the terms set forth in their letters of marque. On the other hand, the very nature of this law blurred the lines between legitimate warfare and piracy, leading to instances where privateers overstepped their bounds and engaged in unlawful acts. As international law evolved, particularly with the establishment of treaties such as the Treaty of Paris in 1856, the law of marque began to fall out of favor. Nations recognized that the practice contributed to the chaos of maritime conflict and could lead to diplomatic tensions. In modern times, the concept has largely been rendered obsolete, as nations now rely on formal naval forces and international agreements to regulate maritime conduct. However, the legacy of the law of marque persists in discussions about private military contractors and the privatization of military force in contemporary conflicts. In conclusion, the law of marque serves as an intriguing example of how states have historically navigated the complexities of warfare and maritime law. While it provided a means for nations to enhance their naval capabilities through private enterprise, it also raised important questions about legality and morality in armed conflict. As we reflect on the implications of the law of marque, it becomes clear that the challenges of regulating warfare are as relevant today as they were centuries ago. Understanding this historical context can help us better appreciate the ongoing debates surrounding the use of private military forces and the role of individual actors in modern conflicts.

“法令”这一概念有着丰富的历史，可以追溯到中世纪，当时各国面临来自海盗和敌舰的威胁。“法令”基本上允许政府授权私人个人，即私掠者，捕获敌方船只并夺取其货物。这一做法不仅是增强海军力量的一种手段，而不必承担维持庞大舰队的费用，同时也鼓励公民参与国家防御。通过授予私掠许可证，政府可以合法地对敌人进行海盗行为，从而为国家和私掠者创造双赢局面。“法令”的合法性和道德性在历史上一直是争论的主题。一方面，它为私掠者提供了一个法律框架，使他们的行为与普通海盗区分开来，后者是在没有官方授权的情况下行动的。这一法律区分意味着，只要私掠者遵守其授权信中的条款，他们就不能因其行为而受到起诉。另一方面，这一法律的性质模糊了合法战争与海盗行为之间的界限，导致出现了一些私掠者超越其权限，参与非法活动的情况。随着国际法的发展，特别是1856年《巴黎条约》的建立，“法令”开始失宠。各国认识到这一做法助长了海事冲突的混乱，并可能导致外交紧张关系。在现代，随着各国依赖正式的海军力量和国际协议来规范海事行为，这一概念在很大程度上已被淘汰。然而，“法令”的遗产在关于私人军事承包商和当代冲突中军事力量私有化的讨论中仍然存在。总之，“法令”作为一个引人入胜的例子，展示了国家如何历史性地应对战争和海事法的复杂性。尽管它为国家通过私人企业增强海军能力提供了手段，但它也提出了有关武装冲突中的合法性和道德性的重要问题。当我们反思“法令”的影响时，很明显，规范战争的挑战在今天与几个世纪前一样相关。理解这一历史背景可以帮助我们更好地欣赏围绕私人军事力量使用及个人行为者在现代冲突中角色的持续辩论。